This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Television: Stations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance). Pittsburgh Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image:WPGHFOX53.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on WPGH-TV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130829004251/http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf to http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1082A2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220085649/http://pbrtv.com/blog/entry_890.php to http://pbrtv.com/blog/entry_890.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:WPGH-TV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 08:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Dracophyllum (talk · contribs) 22:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Next one :), comments to follow. Dracophyllum 22:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1a)
  • "In 2003, Sinclair converted it to its News Central hybrid format, which led to ratings declines." > which lead to a decline in ratings.
  • "Further, UHF stations performed poorly in rougher terrain" > Further from what.
  • prose otherwise flawless. @Sammi Brie:
    • Thanks Dracophyllum, just tweaked both of these. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 16:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Awesome, I have embarrassingly few comments which is a testament to the quality of your GANs. Another nice one, passing now. Dracophyllum 20:23, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 1b) MOS good Y
• 2a) Ref layout is consistent Y
• 2b) Sources are RS as either GOV or local news Y
• 2c) Spot checking is clean Y
  • ref 2, good
  • ref 22, good
  • ref 42, good
  • ref 67, good
  • ref 82, good
  • ref 102, good
• 2d) earwig clean Y
• 3a) 3b) good overview of history, good level of focus YY
• 4) neutral Y
• 5) stable Y
• 6a) freely licensed Y
• 6b) appropriate Y

Sorry for slow response, I am very busy rn but should have time in a week. Dracophyllum 22:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Darth Stabro talk 04:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that construction of a Pittsburgh TV station was delayed when it was discovered that abandoned mine shafts ran beneath the planned tower site? Source: https://www.newspapers.com/article/pittsburgh-post-gazette-cbs-looks-at-ra/140220049/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Marcia Coyle

Improved to Good Article status by Sammi Brie (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 756 past nominations.

Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 23:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Article is new enough, well sourced, hook is interesting and QPQ is completed. I don't see anything that would hold this back from DYK, so I approve. Good job on the article. TheBritinator (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]